Now, drugs are an "issue" around the world (I put issue in quotes as I'm trying to start off with no bias). But, what are your thoughts? Do you think drugs should be completely legalized? Do you think they should be heavily restricted? Do you think some should be legalized for medicinal purposes? Do you think drugs are even dangerous? And finally, do you think that alcohol and tobacco products should also be restricted/more open?

I'm not sure I'm ready to say we should outright legalize drugs, but banning them will work no better than gun control or prohibition. some dude smokin a bit of it in his house a few nights a week isn't hurting anyone.Permalink

Quoting Michael K.
..banning them will work no better than gun control or prohibition.

Actually, it might work better. The thing that makes gun control and prohibition not work is the fact that we have a long-standing tradition of having guns and alcohol legal. It's not banning something that does the damage, it's making drastic changes in society.Permalink

Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Actually, it might. The thing that makes gun control and prohibition not work is the fact that we have a long-standing tradition of having guns and alcohol legal. It's not banning something that does the damage, it's making drastic changes in society.

But how is po t different? The issue at the heart of these 3 topics is people will find a way to get what they want, legal or not.Permalink

Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
But if it's not illegal, more people will want it, and it will be easier to get.

Woah, I never said it should be legal like "yea, go ahead, do it all you want." Only that banning it isn't solving anything. The drug war in the south is killing thousands, trying to stuff the genie back into the bottl ePermalink

If drugs instantly became illegal, there would be MAJOR feedback; unappreciated feedback. I don't think drugs are a good thing, nor their affects on humans. I wish there was a way the use of them could be obliterated, but I simply don't think there is a way to make them illegal without some sort of backfire. And if all the people who are hooked got it suddenly taken away . . . a lot of lives would be lost. I guess that's just my opinion . . .Permalink

While some people are so unstable drugs might actually make them safer, most people have their mind altered in a bad way when they take drugs. Violent, drug-addled addicts are the last things I want to have running around town. Permalink

Quoting Achintya Prasad
Hmm, so this is a tough question. Should drugs be legalized?

I personally don't think so. But whoever wants to legalize Drugs, apparently is sick of tracking down "Druggies." Drugs are bad for you.. I have uncles, who are on drugs, they're Bums. They steal their dad's food because they don't have enough money to buy their own food, because they spent every cent of the money they earn on drugs. They go crazy when they're on drugs, beating each other up, beating their 70 year old dad up... Going to jail every month... I'm sick of drugs. Permalink

Quoting LukeClarenceVan The Revanchist
While some people are so unstable drugs might actually make them safer, most people have their mind altered in a bad way when they take drugs. Violent, drug-addled addicts are the last things I want to have running around town.

Agreed.

Drugs are bad news. I say, send the US military to the border; knock each and every cartel. Obviously Mexico can't handle it.

If you really want to get rid of drugs, cut off the head of the snake. Get rid of the fields, and the distributers.

As far as I can work out, only OCCASIONALLY do drugs actually have a positive impact on a person. For medicinal purposes, please, do relieve the ban. Otherwise, destroy these vile things.

Now, in terms of tobacco. All I'm sayin' is that we now live in a world where you can buy poison that can kill you. I think that speaks volume. Permalink

I believe that the only purpose drugs should serve. Is for medicinal purposes, but when someone uses them to get high on. They hurt themselves with the drugs, and become a hazard, and an outright danger to others as Freeling post suggested.

So in short. No drugs should not be legal. They should be heavily ban, and controlled by the government.

Quoting Luke the Swift
I believe that the only purpose drugs should serve. Is for medicinal purposes, but when someone uses them to get high on. They hurt themselves with the drugs, and become a hazard, and an outright danger to others as Freeling post suggested.

So in short. No drugs should not be legal. They should be heavily ban, and controlled by the government.

Just my 0.02$.

Dollar sign foes on the other side, BTW :-)

Anyways, yeah. All this talk that drugs aren't that addictive is absurd. They are still addictive, right?Permalink

I think that cigarettes and anything that affects other people should be banned, totally.

If use of a drug endangers other people's lives, then it shouldn't be legal. Obviously something like Angel Dust would be illegal under this, but alcohol and marijuana are gray areas.

It boils down to whether you believe people should be able to harm themselves as they please...

That was the idea of prohibition, keep people from harming themselves. Clearly it failed, they repealed in less than a decade. Drugs are already illegal, the drug war is going so badly, that in any city, you can find a dealer within walking distance. Banning something people want won't stop them from wanting/getting it.Permalink

Quoting Michael K.
That was the idea of prohibition, keep people from harming themselves. Clearly it failed, they repealed in less than a decade. Drugs are already illegal, the drug war is going so badly, that in any city, you can find a dealer within walking distance. Banning something people want won't stop them from wanting/getting it.

Prohibition didn't work, I know that. That's why I said that if you could do it and it actually worked, then yes, I'd be for it.

And pot does have lasting effects on people. Something doesn't have to kill you to be bad for you.Permalink

People will always abuse everything they have, so they have to be given as little to abuse as they can.

They will smoke around babies, let babies dring alcohol, give drugs to their children.

Worst of all, drugs degenerate society and genetic pool. Ban. Exterminate all traces of those plants. People make way too much fuss about biodiversity. As a biologist, I can understand most of it, but man...Permalink

Quoting Luke the Swift
which would leave the cartel more exposed because if there was a huge demand they would have to start using huge shipments which would give the US a perfect chance to nail them.

Cartels aren't big store front services that can be easily traced or tracked. Some are, but enough aren't. If you live in the USA, the southern border is so accessible, it'd be no problem for the drugs to get in by hand. There'd be no shipping containers that land in Los Angeles or Houston. It'd get over someway and somehow. If you live in practically any other country, this is pretty much a moot point. Permalink

Governments all over the world spend billions each year on trying to 'suppress' the drug trade, yet addicts always seem to have few problems finding their latest fix.

A state has a handful of real responsibilities, including protecting its citizens from attack and maintaining critical infrastructure. They do, unfortunately, have a habit of extending their grubby fingers into all sorts of pies, including charity, education, art and agriculture.

If the people in a state decide as a group that they aren't willing to tolerate (tobacco/alcohol/morphine/teh homogheyz/j00z/catholics/marihuana) then they'll deal with it themselves one way or the other.

If everyone in the world decided tomorrow that they weren't going to tolerate drugs, and refused to talk to or deal with anyone who did, then I expect there'd be rather fewer drug users around.
Think we've established by now that prohibition doesn't work.

Governments all over the world spend billions each year on trying to 'suppress' the drug trade, yet addicts always seem to have few problems finding their latest fix.

A state has a handful of real responsibilities, including protecting its citizens from attack and maintaining critical infrastructure. They do, unfortunately, have a habit of extending their grubby fingers into all sorts of pies, including charity, education, art and agriculture.

If the people in a state decide as a group that they aren't willing to tolerate (tobacco/alcohol/morphine/teh homogheyz/j00z/catholics/marihuana) then they'll deal with it themselves one way or the other.

If everyone in the world decided tomorrow that they weren't going to tolerate drugs, and refused to talk to or deal with anyone who did, then I expect there'd be rather fewer drug users around.

Quoting Achintya Prasad
Do you think drugs should be completely legalized? Do you think they should be heavily restricted? Do you think some should be legalized for medicinal purposes?
And finally, do you think that alcohol and tobacco products should also be restricted/more open?

If people are using them of their own will, it's really no business of the state's.

Quoting Achintya Prasad
Do you think drugs are even dangerous?

Everything's dangerous. The distinction between 'medicine' and 'poison' has always been the dose.Permalink

Quoting Areetsa C
Think we've established by now that prohibition doesn't work.

Governments all over the world spend billions each year on trying to 'suppress' the drug trade, yet addicts always seem to have few problems finding their latest fix.

A state has a handful of real responsibilities, including protecting its citizens from attack and maintaining critical infrastructure. They do, unfortunately, have a habit of extending their grubby fingers into all sorts of pies, including charity, education, art and agriculture.

If the people in a state decide as a group that they aren't willing to tolerate (tobacco/alcohol/morphine/teh homogheyz/j00z/catholics/marihuana) then they'll deal with it themselves one way or the other.

If everyone in the world decided tomorrow that they weren't going to tolerate drugs, and refused to talk to or deal with anyone who did, then I expect there'd be rather fewer drug users around.
Think we've established by now that prohibition doesn't work.

Governments all over the world spend billions each year on trying to 'suppress' the drug trade, yet addicts always seem to have few problems finding their latest fix.

A state has a handful of real responsibilities, including protecting its citizens from attack and maintaining critical infrastructure. They do, unfortunately, have a habit of extending their grubby fingers into all sorts of pies, including charity, education, art and agriculture.

If the people in a state decide as a group that they aren't willing to tolerate (tobacco/alcohol/morphine/teh homogheyz/j00z/catholics/marihuana) then they'll deal with it themselves one way or the other.

If everyone in the world decided tomorrow that they weren't going to tolerate drugs, and refused to talk to or deal with anyone who did, then I expect there'd be rather fewer drug users around.

I'm guessing you didn't intend to do that. Who do the Pages do that?Permalink